Why is it such a big deal to split the document into its
two respective parts? I would think that those who truly
believe the IPP encoding is "transport independent" would
insist on such a separation of the documentation. Further,
I don't think the IETF cares all that much about whether
there is one document or two.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Turner, Randy wrote:
>
> I'm curious why the existing binary encoding is inherently dependent on
> chunking?....I thought chunking was a part of the transport of the
> encoding. I don't think there is anything inherent (or explicitly
> referenced) by the current encoding that involves chunking. You're right
> that another transport would have to solve the chunking problem, but
> it's a TRANSPORT issue, so this would naturally fall into a transport
> mapping document. If there was a bit or byte that specified HTTP
> chunking within the binary encoding, then this is a different story.
>
> Randy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Herriot [SMTP:robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM]
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 12:06 PM
> To: Turner, Randy; 'ipp@pwg.org'
> Subject: Re: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)
>
> I think we had this discussion in Austin as part of Tom's
> proposal. We
> decided to change the name of the protocol document. Its new
> name is
> "Internet Printing Protocol/1.0: Encoding and Transport". We
> decided not to
> split the two documents.
>
> Although the IPP encoding is, in theory, transport independent.
> In fact, it
> depends on HTTP chunking. With an alternate transport, we would
> have to
> solve the chunking problem. It would be more efficient if the
> document data
> were the only part chunked, but that would require a change to
> the encoding
> layer.
>
> So, at this point, I don't endorse separating the two documents.
>
> Bob Herriot
>
> At 03:36 PM 3/12/98 , Turner, Randy wrote:
> >
> >Would anyone have any problem(s) splitting the protocol (not
> model)
> >document into two documents?
> >
> >Document 1 would be an encoding document
> >Document 2 would describe how to transport the encoding over
> HTTP 1.1
> >
> >?
> >
> >Randy
> >